“Electric circuitry profoundly involves men with one another. Information pours upon us, instantaneously and continuously.”
Marshall McLuhan, THE MEDIUM IS THE MASSAGE
McLuhan made this prophetic statement back when most homes had a single black-and-white television (controlled by knobs!) and one corded telephone. Radios were becoming portable, but they were still bulky. Music was recorded onto large vinyl discs and played on a revolving machine, attached to a cord. Computers were slow, big things. Some forty years later, most people in America and Europe, and many people living elsewhere, carry in one pocket a telephone, radio, TV, record player, computer, still and movie camera, and game board. Imagination is challenged to speculate what our inter-connected world will be like forty years hence. But there can be no denying we are in the global village, and as in any small town, everyone knows everything about everyone.
Some high-tech wizards have smugly assured us that privacy is gone and we just have to adjust. They’re probably right. We are glutted with revelations about the amoral habits of celebrities, and an endless cavalcade of commoners seeks a bit of fame by doing the same things. Tasting the so-called forbidden fruits will earn grateful snickering from our fellow humans. Doing nothing is equally exposed. The only bright spot in all this sunlight is the fact there are so many of us that we need to encourage gossip if we want to get more than a little of it.
Why, then, is our government shocked—shocked! at the Wikileaks exposure of so-called official secrets? In the first place, with an estimated 2 1/2 million names on the security list, secrecy is practically unattainable. In the second, there were no surprises. Wikileaks revealed that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable. If our government really believes nobody knew that, it is effective only at keeping secrets from itself.
As for the embarrassing little tidbits about State Department staffers engaging in some petty behaviour – anybody who has ever worked with other human beings already knew that. If these facts elicit any thought on the part of us rubes, it is more relief than shock, to know that our government employs human beings much like ourselves. Wikileaks made public an incredible amount of information of no use to an enemy or to us, which accounts for the lukewarm reactions of Hilary Clinton, Robert Gates, and President Obama. And it just might demonstrate a real strength of democratic societies, as we can shake off exposure to embarrassing information.
The government has options. One is to reduce the number of official secrets it classifies. The advantages of such reductions are obvious. It is easier to keep secret a few items and strategies that would truly harm the country if they fell into the wrong hands. Nobody wants that. And if embarrassing facts are routinely brought to light, which is expected in both democratic theory and in law, the government will probably operate in a less embarrassing fashion, which means more effectively. And we can all benefit by our government’s taking a hard look at just what gets classified.
Obviously, in recent decades our elected government has been on a mission, sometimes a frenzied one, to classify more and more of its doings. Now that it can no longer get away with, it might as well operate openly and honestly, as elected governments are supposed to do. As far as giving advantage to real or potential enemies, we remember they are in the global village too. The first of Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points: “Open covenants of peace openly arrived at,” could become reality, nearly a century later, as a response to the facts of life.
Governments (ours included) have one other option: to maintain secrecy through fear. Sadly, this option is behind the imprisonment of Bradley Manning, accused of leaking secrets to Julian Assange of Wikileaks. Assange will be tried in Sweden on unrelated rape charges. Should he be acquitted and extradited to the United States, he can afford lawyers who will assure him a fair trial. Manning, on the other hand, has been disappeared. The fate of the “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo and elsewhere is now being visited on an American citizen. He has had no “speedy and public trial”. No such thing is proposed for him. He lapses in solitary confinement, denied even the meager privileges granted to convicted criminals, and this, for all we know, is to be his fate. Manning’s absolutely un-constitutional punishment could serve as a terrifying example to future whistleblowers. If this situation endures, we will need to rewrite history, especially concerning which side won the Cold War.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Monday, March 14, 2011
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
Desperate times conjure desperate actions. Fear breeds anger, and people are tempted to do things that are hard to undo. In 2011, people who work for a living are at odds with each other. Government employees are under assault, forced by insolvent and indebted governments to work harder for less pay and reduced benefits. Meanwhile the political class would eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. And some workers in the private sector appear eager to see that happen.
Give credit to the politicians and their wealthy backers who have managed to drive so huge a wedge between people who have the same wants, needs and aspirations, who would be so much healthier, wealthier, and wiser if they would help instead of fight each other. It has taken a long time and sustained pursuit to get some working people to despise others. But if there be a legitimate grievance against public employees, it needs to be brought into the light for close inspection.
True believers of the doctrine that government is the problem in all cases are far gone into delusion. People who feel all government workers are lazy parasites cannot be reached with logic. Those who can ignore dams, roads, schools, parks, sewers, military, police, firefighters, and all other successful government projects are, if not happy, at least satisfied with their intentional ignorance. But most private company workers understand the need for a social contract and appreciate the work public employees do, to promote the general welfare. They know most public employees, like most private employees, earn their pay. But as human beings we all tend to annoy each other in many different ways, and in hard times minor irritations can turn into nasty resentments, with resulting harsh retaliations.
In the first place, in recessions, when businesses cut back and employees lose jobs, government workers tend to keep theirs. With the jobs they keep their good pay, holidays, vacations, medical insurance and other perks. In long recessions the relative prosperity of government workers can be especially grating as tax revenues go down, and governments seek new sources of revenue to maintain services. The argument against raising taxes to support government workers can be very convincing, with the citizenry struggling to get by.
Still, a look at all sides of the situation brings up more questions. Do tough times reduce or eliminate the need for government services? We know that more people need the safety net in recessions. So we find ourselves demanding public employees to work harder for less. And while such demands appear unfair, we are reminded that life is unfair, and that many workers in the private sector have seen their wages reduced and their benefits decimated. Everyone must learn to get along with less.
Well…not quite everyone. The rich have prospered, some obscenely so. Yet many in the media and in elected office (most of them well-off) say the very idea of taxing wealth, even a little more, is unfair. And many workers agree. Yes, they hold, it would be nice if the rich would share some of their abundance with the less fortunate. Some rich folks do. But if they choose to keep, squander or destroy their wealth to the benefit of no one, that is their right, and it would be wrong for the rest of us to tax them to help the needy. However, strangling government, leaving those truly desperate to their fate, is quite fair, according to advocates for the rich in media, politics and our neighbourhoods. They accuse their opponents of envy, which renders any attempt to use excess wealth to jump-start the economy as unworthy of debate. Rich people have something others want: their money. We can’t have it, end of discussion. But interestingly, the same argument does not hold regarding government employees. They have living wages and benefits, and a collective bargaining system to improve their lot. All workers want these. But since private employees have lost theirs, it seems only right to take them away from public employees as well. Then we’ll all be equally poor and downtrodden—except the rich, who apparently live in a galaxy far away.
We are at moral loggerheads on this issue, and until we see the writing in the sky, we can argue morals and get nowhere. We can, however, look at what we want and how to get it. Collective bargaining allows workers a “living” instead of a “starving”. As unions are decimated, workers’ living standards have fallen. Politicians and newspersons tell workers in the private sector that they have lost their union rights and they’ll never get them back. Public employees still have their rights. Citizens are urged to take those rights away so we’ll all be equal.
If American workers are ready to believe that, we’re in for a long, dark night.
Desperate times conjure desperate actions. Fear breeds anger, and people are tempted to do things that are hard to undo. In 2011, people who work for a living are at odds with each other. Government employees are under assault, forced by insolvent and indebted governments to work harder for less pay and reduced benefits. Meanwhile the political class would eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees. And some workers in the private sector appear eager to see that happen.
Give credit to the politicians and their wealthy backers who have managed to drive so huge a wedge between people who have the same wants, needs and aspirations, who would be so much healthier, wealthier, and wiser if they would help instead of fight each other. It has taken a long time and sustained pursuit to get some working people to despise others. But if there be a legitimate grievance against public employees, it needs to be brought into the light for close inspection.
True believers of the doctrine that government is the problem in all cases are far gone into delusion. People who feel all government workers are lazy parasites cannot be reached with logic. Those who can ignore dams, roads, schools, parks, sewers, military, police, firefighters, and all other successful government projects are, if not happy, at least satisfied with their intentional ignorance. But most private company workers understand the need for a social contract and appreciate the work public employees do, to promote the general welfare. They know most public employees, like most private employees, earn their pay. But as human beings we all tend to annoy each other in many different ways, and in hard times minor irritations can turn into nasty resentments, with resulting harsh retaliations.
In the first place, in recessions, when businesses cut back and employees lose jobs, government workers tend to keep theirs. With the jobs they keep their good pay, holidays, vacations, medical insurance and other perks. In long recessions the relative prosperity of government workers can be especially grating as tax revenues go down, and governments seek new sources of revenue to maintain services. The argument against raising taxes to support government workers can be very convincing, with the citizenry struggling to get by.
Still, a look at all sides of the situation brings up more questions. Do tough times reduce or eliminate the need for government services? We know that more people need the safety net in recessions. So we find ourselves demanding public employees to work harder for less. And while such demands appear unfair, we are reminded that life is unfair, and that many workers in the private sector have seen their wages reduced and their benefits decimated. Everyone must learn to get along with less.
Well…not quite everyone. The rich have prospered, some obscenely so. Yet many in the media and in elected office (most of them well-off) say the very idea of taxing wealth, even a little more, is unfair. And many workers agree. Yes, they hold, it would be nice if the rich would share some of their abundance with the less fortunate. Some rich folks do. But if they choose to keep, squander or destroy their wealth to the benefit of no one, that is their right, and it would be wrong for the rest of us to tax them to help the needy. However, strangling government, leaving those truly desperate to their fate, is quite fair, according to advocates for the rich in media, politics and our neighbourhoods. They accuse their opponents of envy, which renders any attempt to use excess wealth to jump-start the economy as unworthy of debate. Rich people have something others want: their money. We can’t have it, end of discussion. But interestingly, the same argument does not hold regarding government employees. They have living wages and benefits, and a collective bargaining system to improve their lot. All workers want these. But since private employees have lost theirs, it seems only right to take them away from public employees as well. Then we’ll all be equally poor and downtrodden—except the rich, who apparently live in a galaxy far away.
We are at moral loggerheads on this issue, and until we see the writing in the sky, we can argue morals and get nowhere. We can, however, look at what we want and how to get it. Collective bargaining allows workers a “living” instead of a “starving”. As unions are decimated, workers’ living standards have fallen. Politicians and newspersons tell workers in the private sector that they have lost their union rights and they’ll never get them back. Public employees still have their rights. Citizens are urged to take those rights away so we’ll all be equal.
If American workers are ready to believe that, we’re in for a long, dark night.
Monday, February 28, 2011
WHITHER OUR WITHERED DEMOCRACY?
“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”
James Madison
Excitement in Egypt fades, unrest follows all over the Middle East and spreads to our Midwest. America, seemingly powerless in foreign affairs, has an effective option: to remove our military presence from Iraq and Afghanistan, now. No action would help the fortunes of people promoting true democracy in the region more than the cessation of U.S. warfare on people who live there. Ending our imperial adventures there would also be healthy for the state of American democracy. In addition to lives and money, Americans have lost precious freedoms, as a direct result of our prolonged state of war.
Whatever our objectives for these deadly, destructive wars were originally, they have not been fulfilled, and they won’t be. Wikileaks told us nothing new. The insanity of the wars and the ineffectiveness of the occupations have been obvious for some time. Our involvement is costing 2 1/2 billion dollars each week, in borrowed funds. While most Americans can still ignore the death and destruction, not being personally involved, many of our political, business and media leaders are screaming against our ballooning public debt. The debt can be dramatically reduced, with virtually universal consent, simply by bringing the troops home.
Mainstream conservatives and liberals, as well as peaceniks and tea partiers, are increasingly united in their calls for wars’ end. The neocons, loudly pounding the war drums in the beginning, drowning out all opposition, have gone undercover, excepting an occasional mumble about mistakes that were made. Only the heroism of our military people stands as an emotional, but not reasonable, excuse for “staying the course”. “We cannot let them die in vain.” But if we are sending others to die only because some have been killed already, then we must conclude that all have died in vain. “We cannot support the troops unless we also support the mission,” which means we must leave them there to kill or be killed. We can see why the founding fathers tried to make it difficult to go to war. How can we have the hubris to force democracy on Afghanistan and Iraq while lending only lukewarm support to democracy elsewhere in the area, and letting it die here?
Most people dislike war, and the more we learn about it, the less we approve. A special election nationwide would bring the troops home the next day. Yet we have continual warfare. The establishment, controlled by the scarcely hidden military-industrial complex, will make sure that the issue never gets to a popular vote. The peoples’ will always takes a drubbing in war, as do human rights. Wire-tapping, routine searches, citizens spying on each other, secret kidnappings and torture, imprisonment without habeas corpus, all get people to fear their government. The longer war lasts, the blurrier becomes the distinction, for the rulers, between “them” and “us.”
Despite growing resistance from all sides, our two ruling parties keep the wars going, each terrified that the other side might use the heroism of our troops against them. Regarding the casualties, one side would help the families of the dead and rehabilitate the wounded, while the other side would toss the “dead wood.” Nobody in actual power proposes to immediately stop the carnage. We see plans to start bringing the troops home in the near future, but the plans are rotten with loopholes, and already our leaders have begun to hedge. We are guaranteed a long lasting, unwanted American presence in the Middle East, killing, dying, and letting the future pay for it.
During the Vietnam conflict Eisenhower’s warnings about the power of the “military-industrial complex” to subvert our freedom were amplified. Those warnings have been proven true, though historical revisionism transformed the Vietnam War from an unneeded, colonial war to a “noble cause.” The revisionists were then able to get the country involved in more “noble causes” in the Middle East. The doublethink, whereby we know the military-industrial complex subverts our democracy at the same time we believe in the noble cause of all American warfare, allows war to continue indefinitely. And whenever someone dares to present the truth, the establishment counters by waving the bloody shirt, rendering further resistance futile.
The revolution in Egypt was peaceful. America can encourage peaceful steps to democracy by ending war with Egypt’s neighbours. At the same time we can start to repair the deep injuries to our democracy due to ceaseless war. Recent stories from Afghanistan tell us that the latest surge has been successful. People over there like us. How many times will we continue to believe the “light at the end of the tunnel” stories? Our fortunes will vastly improve, in the long run, when we stop blowing up people, places, and things. To build democracy there, we rebuild it here: if we play it right, we could get a win-win.
James Madison
Excitement in Egypt fades, unrest follows all over the Middle East and spreads to our Midwest. America, seemingly powerless in foreign affairs, has an effective option: to remove our military presence from Iraq and Afghanistan, now. No action would help the fortunes of people promoting true democracy in the region more than the cessation of U.S. warfare on people who live there. Ending our imperial adventures there would also be healthy for the state of American democracy. In addition to lives and money, Americans have lost precious freedoms, as a direct result of our prolonged state of war.
Whatever our objectives for these deadly, destructive wars were originally, they have not been fulfilled, and they won’t be. Wikileaks told us nothing new. The insanity of the wars and the ineffectiveness of the occupations have been obvious for some time. Our involvement is costing 2 1/2 billion dollars each week, in borrowed funds. While most Americans can still ignore the death and destruction, not being personally involved, many of our political, business and media leaders are screaming against our ballooning public debt. The debt can be dramatically reduced, with virtually universal consent, simply by bringing the troops home.
Mainstream conservatives and liberals, as well as peaceniks and tea partiers, are increasingly united in their calls for wars’ end. The neocons, loudly pounding the war drums in the beginning, drowning out all opposition, have gone undercover, excepting an occasional mumble about mistakes that were made. Only the heroism of our military people stands as an emotional, but not reasonable, excuse for “staying the course”. “We cannot let them die in vain.” But if we are sending others to die only because some have been killed already, then we must conclude that all have died in vain. “We cannot support the troops unless we also support the mission,” which means we must leave them there to kill or be killed. We can see why the founding fathers tried to make it difficult to go to war. How can we have the hubris to force democracy on Afghanistan and Iraq while lending only lukewarm support to democracy elsewhere in the area, and letting it die here?
Most people dislike war, and the more we learn about it, the less we approve. A special election nationwide would bring the troops home the next day. Yet we have continual warfare. The establishment, controlled by the scarcely hidden military-industrial complex, will make sure that the issue never gets to a popular vote. The peoples’ will always takes a drubbing in war, as do human rights. Wire-tapping, routine searches, citizens spying on each other, secret kidnappings and torture, imprisonment without habeas corpus, all get people to fear their government. The longer war lasts, the blurrier becomes the distinction, for the rulers, between “them” and “us.”
Despite growing resistance from all sides, our two ruling parties keep the wars going, each terrified that the other side might use the heroism of our troops against them. Regarding the casualties, one side would help the families of the dead and rehabilitate the wounded, while the other side would toss the “dead wood.” Nobody in actual power proposes to immediately stop the carnage. We see plans to start bringing the troops home in the near future, but the plans are rotten with loopholes, and already our leaders have begun to hedge. We are guaranteed a long lasting, unwanted American presence in the Middle East, killing, dying, and letting the future pay for it.
During the Vietnam conflict Eisenhower’s warnings about the power of the “military-industrial complex” to subvert our freedom were amplified. Those warnings have been proven true, though historical revisionism transformed the Vietnam War from an unneeded, colonial war to a “noble cause.” The revisionists were then able to get the country involved in more “noble causes” in the Middle East. The doublethink, whereby we know the military-industrial complex subverts our democracy at the same time we believe in the noble cause of all American warfare, allows war to continue indefinitely. And whenever someone dares to present the truth, the establishment counters by waving the bloody shirt, rendering further resistance futile.
The revolution in Egypt was peaceful. America can encourage peaceful steps to democracy by ending war with Egypt’s neighbours. At the same time we can start to repair the deep injuries to our democracy due to ceaseless war. Recent stories from Afghanistan tell us that the latest surge has been successful. People over there like us. How many times will we continue to believe the “light at the end of the tunnel” stories? Our fortunes will vastly improve, in the long run, when we stop blowing up people, places, and things. To build democracy there, we rebuild it here: if we play it right, we could get a win-win.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
THE PARTY FAITHFUL
"The broad movement of American politics in recent decades has been toward greater inequality, the discrediting of public institutions and a near idolatry of private markets at the expense of corporate accountability."
Katrina Vanden Heuvel, THE NATION, January 24, 2011
"If free enterprise becomes a proselytizing holy cause, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident."
Eric Hoffer, THE TRUE BELIEVER
Economically, things are rough all over, excepting a tiny minority that waxes ever richer. Meanwhile some Americans, calling themselves Tea Party Patriots, are so sure of the righteousness of this inequality that they enthusiastically elected politicians who have pledged not only to uphold the situation, but to eliminate remaining social safeguards. While our capitalist economy is imploding, these people fear impending socialism. After many years of capitalism's gradually being released from constraints imposed after the last Great Depression, the predictable collapse has happened, and the only thing we have to fear, apparently, is another round of constraints upon private enterprise.
The Tea Partiers, their prodders in the media, and their secret exploiters among the extremely wealthy, feel no need for logic. Their loyalty, "near idolatry", to the economic system that brought on this current persistent recession is based on faith alone. Free enterprise is good, freer enterprise, better. Socialism in any form is evil. Economic inequality is right. The rich are entitled to their luxuries just as the poor are entitled to their privations.
To rational people, economic systems are tools, to be used by societies for the mundane purpose of delivering more and better goods and services to more people. As human beings progress, we learn from mistakes, so we can improve on existing systems. The social safety net, along with business and industrial regulations and public works projects, were enacted when it became clear that unbridled free enterprise morphs into a sophisticated piracy that causes misery on a scale traditional pirates can only dream about. Knowing this, a return to free-range capitalism would be insane. Yet to the Tea Party faithful, this is where we need to go...not because it is sensible, but because it is morally right.
Tycoons and entrepreneurs know that economics and morals do not make a good fit. Right is getting a product or service and selling it at a profit. Wrong is failing to do so, thus losing money. It's a primitive impulse. Our forebears could not look too closely at how mastodons might feel about being hunted. People needed food. Bring down a mastodon and many people get to eat. It was a collective operation, too. Faithful devotion to rugged individualism in mankind's early days would probably have nipped the human race in the bud. Human progress depends on doing what works.
Communism taught us the horrors of unhampered collectivization, which not only killed and enslaved millions, but failed miserably to ease poverty. Modern liberals are not looking around for a new Lenin. But common sense shows that some collective action by society can have positive effects, that it does not pave the road to Gulag. We know we can have sensible controls on free enterprise without stifling initiative. As citizens of a democracy we are naturally free to evaluate our government's effect on our economy, to make adjustments, to set goals. We're not stuck with anything.
As citizens of a democracy, we are free to argue over the effectiveness of any plan, any procedure, to discuss the price, to compromise, to revise. Human institutions being imperfect, reasonable people can always make improvements. The Tea Party faithful, however, insist on a narrow, subjective reading of the Constitution, by which the national government has no power but to protect business from government. Profit is sacred, it's every man for himself, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be fought for and preserved, apparently, at gunpoint. Planning and cooperation are sins. Has capitalism taken on a religious reverence because it no longer works?
In the current disaster, government bailed out the financial and automobile industries and invested in job creation. And though prosperity is not yet around the corner, these moves are understood to have averted a worse catastrophe. To the Tea Party faithful, the right thing would have been to let the disaster go as far as it would go. Bank failures, industrial bankruptcies, joblessness on an enormous scale--these would have been acceptable alternatives to socialism. At least we would all be free to get and keep whatever we can. No nirvana, no celestial virgins, no eternal planet, no streets of gold--the Tea Party paradise is an earthly one, where government has no hold on anybody. If this does not sound promising, it's what comes from confusing philosophy and religion with the unexciting process of economics.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel, THE NATION, January 24, 2011
"If free enterprise becomes a proselytizing holy cause, it will be a sign that its workability and advantages have ceased to be self-evident."
Eric Hoffer, THE TRUE BELIEVER
Economically, things are rough all over, excepting a tiny minority that waxes ever richer. Meanwhile some Americans, calling themselves Tea Party Patriots, are so sure of the righteousness of this inequality that they enthusiastically elected politicians who have pledged not only to uphold the situation, but to eliminate remaining social safeguards. While our capitalist economy is imploding, these people fear impending socialism. After many years of capitalism's gradually being released from constraints imposed after the last Great Depression, the predictable collapse has happened, and the only thing we have to fear, apparently, is another round of constraints upon private enterprise.
The Tea Partiers, their prodders in the media, and their secret exploiters among the extremely wealthy, feel no need for logic. Their loyalty, "near idolatry", to the economic system that brought on this current persistent recession is based on faith alone. Free enterprise is good, freer enterprise, better. Socialism in any form is evil. Economic inequality is right. The rich are entitled to their luxuries just as the poor are entitled to their privations.
To rational people, economic systems are tools, to be used by societies for the mundane purpose of delivering more and better goods and services to more people. As human beings progress, we learn from mistakes, so we can improve on existing systems. The social safety net, along with business and industrial regulations and public works projects, were enacted when it became clear that unbridled free enterprise morphs into a sophisticated piracy that causes misery on a scale traditional pirates can only dream about. Knowing this, a return to free-range capitalism would be insane. Yet to the Tea Party faithful, this is where we need to go...not because it is sensible, but because it is morally right.
Tycoons and entrepreneurs know that economics and morals do not make a good fit. Right is getting a product or service and selling it at a profit. Wrong is failing to do so, thus losing money. It's a primitive impulse. Our forebears could not look too closely at how mastodons might feel about being hunted. People needed food. Bring down a mastodon and many people get to eat. It was a collective operation, too. Faithful devotion to rugged individualism in mankind's early days would probably have nipped the human race in the bud. Human progress depends on doing what works.
Communism taught us the horrors of unhampered collectivization, which not only killed and enslaved millions, but failed miserably to ease poverty. Modern liberals are not looking around for a new Lenin. But common sense shows that some collective action by society can have positive effects, that it does not pave the road to Gulag. We know we can have sensible controls on free enterprise without stifling initiative. As citizens of a democracy we are naturally free to evaluate our government's effect on our economy, to make adjustments, to set goals. We're not stuck with anything.
As citizens of a democracy, we are free to argue over the effectiveness of any plan, any procedure, to discuss the price, to compromise, to revise. Human institutions being imperfect, reasonable people can always make improvements. The Tea Party faithful, however, insist on a narrow, subjective reading of the Constitution, by which the national government has no power but to protect business from government. Profit is sacred, it's every man for himself, and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be fought for and preserved, apparently, at gunpoint. Planning and cooperation are sins. Has capitalism taken on a religious reverence because it no longer works?
In the current disaster, government bailed out the financial and automobile industries and invested in job creation. And though prosperity is not yet around the corner, these moves are understood to have averted a worse catastrophe. To the Tea Party faithful, the right thing would have been to let the disaster go as far as it would go. Bank failures, industrial bankruptcies, joblessness on an enormous scale--these would have been acceptable alternatives to socialism. At least we would all be free to get and keep whatever we can. No nirvana, no celestial virgins, no eternal planet, no streets of gold--the Tea Party paradise is an earthly one, where government has no hold on anybody. If this does not sound promising, it's what comes from confusing philosophy and religion with the unexciting process of economics.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
THE STARS AND BARS FOREVER
In South Carolina some solid citizens recently celebrated the 150th anniversary of their state's secession from the Union, and the start of the Civil War. The celebrants, being White, claim surprise that Black citizens are less than enthusiastic about the festivities. Blacks, having suffered over two centuries of slavery, and another of Jim Crow segregation, which was not much different, can be forgiven for harbouring distrust and trepidation when the Whites dress up in plantation garb and declare their good intentions toward Americans of all races. The lot of Afro-Americans has only been improving in the last half-century, and those improvements have been in many quarters grudgingly given, and not only in the South. Who can blame them for being just a bit edgy?
If the South Carolina secession celebration had been an isolated incident it might be easier to believe the partygoers when they declare they are merely hailing the South's proud heritage of liberty, not the part where people owned other people, even though owning human property was the freedom secession was going to protect. But Southern politicians have recently been talking openly of secession, nullification and states' rights again, which happen to have been major issues in the slave states in the years leading up to the Civil War. And these issues have re-emerged at the same time America elected a Black man to the presidency. Just coincidence, they all say.
It is tempting to believe that all this ante-bellum talk has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Otherwise we must confront the very real possibility that racism is still quite strong in this country. Racism has been a defining thread in our history since Jamestown--since Columbus. In reality it goes back to humanity's hunter-forager beginnings. While racism probably assured mankind's survival in small, close-knit tribal groups for many millennia, this deep-seated emotion has become a threat to mankind's survival and most of us would sooner have it just go away. On our tightly wired, inter-dependent, small planet, the human race has evolved into one clan. Just about all of us (some gladly, some grudgingly, most of us both) are aware of this new reality. Still, survival techniques reaching back to our evolutionary roots do not go quietly into a good night.
Worldwide, not only are most of us at least intellectually aware that seeing the world as one is beneficial, but in an age of fast, relatively cheap travel and virtually universal access to instant electronic communications, even the most isolated inhabitants of Earth have some personal knowledge of how alike we all are. For this reason, ongoing eruptions of racism, in others and within ourselves, are situations we would rather not deal with. These episodes are ugly in others, terrifying when they enter our personal thoughts. It is much more pleasant to pretend the whole dilemma never existed, to travel to a fantasy land of long ago, when life was quiet, when both masters and slaves were content, to pretend we can return to a life that was like we wanted it to be. Raise high the Stars and Bars and celebrate a fine heritage of liberty.
That Confederate flag represents a chaotic view of our history. Though none live who remember the time, a vivid ancestral memory abides. The wounds are deep, and scars plentiful. The sins of the fathers really were visited on the sons, and the sons kept heaping up more sins on their descendants, to this very day. And though the sins of racism are not confined to South Carolina or even to Dixie, the poison is currently most obvious in the South. The Stars and Bars are being raised again. What does this flag mean?
Heritage, some say, slavery say others. Maybe both viewpoints are correct. Slavery is part of America's heritage, just like mint juleps and black-eyed peas. Slavery, unlike food and drink, is not something we can take or leave. It sticks to our heritage. Therefore it should be examined from all angles, lest we only re-package the problem and fail to progress, at a time when we cannot afford to stand still. Slavery as an institution left one group of Americans with little choice but to justify forced labour, for no pay, on another group, and as such indicates continuing problems for our national integrity. But as an economic system, slavery benefitted only a miniscule part of our population. The plantation owners waxed very rich while the majority of White Southerners found their work vastly undervalued. Many lived in penury due to a system based on free labour.
When secession came, most poor Whites in the South stood by their aristocracy, and bravely fought and died for the preservation of a system that stifled their prospects. Their only advantage was that the slaves were worse off, and that was good enough. The Stars and Bars represents their willingness to fight to keep an economic and social system that worked against them. Raise it high, fly it proudly. It serves to remind us that we humans can forego not just our enlightened self-interest, but our base self-interest, for some unquestioned higher cause. It offers an opportunity to examine our ancestors' motives, to learn if the same shortcomings might yet be present within us. The answers might not be pleasant, but the truth is supposed to set us free.
First we must confront it.
If the South Carolina secession celebration had been an isolated incident it might be easier to believe the partygoers when they declare they are merely hailing the South's proud heritage of liberty, not the part where people owned other people, even though owning human property was the freedom secession was going to protect. But Southern politicians have recently been talking openly of secession, nullification and states' rights again, which happen to have been major issues in the slave states in the years leading up to the Civil War. And these issues have re-emerged at the same time America elected a Black man to the presidency. Just coincidence, they all say.
It is tempting to believe that all this ante-bellum talk has nothing to do with Barack Obama. Otherwise we must confront the very real possibility that racism is still quite strong in this country. Racism has been a defining thread in our history since Jamestown--since Columbus. In reality it goes back to humanity's hunter-forager beginnings. While racism probably assured mankind's survival in small, close-knit tribal groups for many millennia, this deep-seated emotion has become a threat to mankind's survival and most of us would sooner have it just go away. On our tightly wired, inter-dependent, small planet, the human race has evolved into one clan. Just about all of us (some gladly, some grudgingly, most of us both) are aware of this new reality. Still, survival techniques reaching back to our evolutionary roots do not go quietly into a good night.
Worldwide, not only are most of us at least intellectually aware that seeing the world as one is beneficial, but in an age of fast, relatively cheap travel and virtually universal access to instant electronic communications, even the most isolated inhabitants of Earth have some personal knowledge of how alike we all are. For this reason, ongoing eruptions of racism, in others and within ourselves, are situations we would rather not deal with. These episodes are ugly in others, terrifying when they enter our personal thoughts. It is much more pleasant to pretend the whole dilemma never existed, to travel to a fantasy land of long ago, when life was quiet, when both masters and slaves were content, to pretend we can return to a life that was like we wanted it to be. Raise high the Stars and Bars and celebrate a fine heritage of liberty.
That Confederate flag represents a chaotic view of our history. Though none live who remember the time, a vivid ancestral memory abides. The wounds are deep, and scars plentiful. The sins of the fathers really were visited on the sons, and the sons kept heaping up more sins on their descendants, to this very day. And though the sins of racism are not confined to South Carolina or even to Dixie, the poison is currently most obvious in the South. The Stars and Bars are being raised again. What does this flag mean?
Heritage, some say, slavery say others. Maybe both viewpoints are correct. Slavery is part of America's heritage, just like mint juleps and black-eyed peas. Slavery, unlike food and drink, is not something we can take or leave. It sticks to our heritage. Therefore it should be examined from all angles, lest we only re-package the problem and fail to progress, at a time when we cannot afford to stand still. Slavery as an institution left one group of Americans with little choice but to justify forced labour, for no pay, on another group, and as such indicates continuing problems for our national integrity. But as an economic system, slavery benefitted only a miniscule part of our population. The plantation owners waxed very rich while the majority of White Southerners found their work vastly undervalued. Many lived in penury due to a system based on free labour.
When secession came, most poor Whites in the South stood by their aristocracy, and bravely fought and died for the preservation of a system that stifled their prospects. Their only advantage was that the slaves were worse off, and that was good enough. The Stars and Bars represents their willingness to fight to keep an economic and social system that worked against them. Raise it high, fly it proudly. It serves to remind us that we humans can forego not just our enlightened self-interest, but our base self-interest, for some unquestioned higher cause. It offers an opportunity to examine our ancestors' motives, to learn if the same shortcomings might yet be present within us. The answers might not be pleasant, but the truth is supposed to set us free.
First we must confront it.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
THE RIGHTS OF THE RICH
"Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry loose is not nailed down."
Colis P. Huntington, 19th Century Railroad Magnate
"Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened."
Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth"
Paris Hilton will probably never vote for Barack Obama. He holds her up as a picture book example, cute, clueless, careless, of why taxes on the rich should be raised. Her unembarrassed example fails to convince a hard core of Obama's political opponents, who are determined not only to let the wealthy keep their current tax reductions, but to give them even more. To many of us in the masses, the politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers who pander for the benefit of the plutocracy have understandable, though ignoble, motives. By pleasing the rich, they might get rich too. And many of them do. There are many, however, who are not rich, yet still insist that the rich are entitled to all their money. In the interest of fairness, which the rich demand whether or not they grant it, we must ask some questions. Are there valid moral justifications for greed? Should greed be removed from the deadly sins list and added to the virtues? Where does reality fit in?
All human beings justify their actions, at least while they do them. Captains of industry and finance, and their defenders, insist that getting and keeping more is a righteous goal. Huntington stopped short of admitting he stole by claiming it was all his in the first place. Pirates from Alexander the Great to Jesse James have surely felt the same. From the onset of the Industrial Revolution, capitalist plutocrats have always believed their actions were the guiding lights of human progress, that mankind could not have advanced from the caves were it not for high minded men such as themselves. They may have done some awful deeds, but it's all been worth it.
Yes, railroad builder Huntington helped make our country great. How that fact justifies his right to everything he could grab, how his justification differs from open theft, may be hard to explain, but greed is a powerful addiction. Carnegie, who made steel readily available worldwide, claimed that humanity's lot was better as a direct result of capitalist conflict and disruption. He made that claim sixteen years before Ayn Rand, the modern guru of greed, was even born. Over the last century, history has witnessed many wars, depressions, and environmental disasters. Stacked up, these calamities evoke serious doubts whether on balance, the human race is better off since capitalism has held sway over human events. Still, there are many influential voices that continue to preach the wonders of unmitigated greed.
The main reason Carnegie is ignored today by modern apologists for wealth is that Carnegie states flatly that wealthy people should give away most of their money, to pay for the damages they caused in the acquisition process. As one who had been there, he could say with assurance that competition demands that businessmen have a lot of money to do what they need to do. But once the industrial or financial empires are built and in place, the winners no longer need those huge fortunes, and they are obliged to give the money back. He also says that if the rich insist on keeping their wealth, the public has the right to tax them to get what normal people need. Some modern billionaires, led by Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet, are practicing what Carnegie preached. They are voices in the wilderness, given the powerful narcotic of greed. Most rich people, and those who strive to imitate them, cling to the belief that selfishness alone is the root of all human progress. So the debate goes on.
The fall back position for the disciples of greed (should Carnegie and his modern counterparts prove convincing to the masses) is the moral argument: that wealth belongs to those who have it, and nobody has any right to take it away, for any reason. The wealth the rich possess is proof enough of their entitlement. The argument is persuasive. If we were rich, would we want to be punished for it? Then Huntington's famous quote reminds us that the plutocrat's concept of ownership is a little different from most peoples.'
Whether or not we have a moral right to free rich people from their greed, the world is in serious economic trouble. Getting more money into circulation has been proven to relieve hard times. Money nowadays is concentrated in the hands of an extremely small group of people, who refuse to circulate it. Since America is still structurally a democracy, do the people have the right to use democratic measures to use this money to improve the general welfare? We need the money. Have we the right to "pry it loose?"
Colis P. Huntington, 19th Century Railroad Magnate
"Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened."
Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth"
Paris Hilton will probably never vote for Barack Obama. He holds her up as a picture book example, cute, clueless, careless, of why taxes on the rich should be raised. Her unembarrassed example fails to convince a hard core of Obama's political opponents, who are determined not only to let the wealthy keep their current tax reductions, but to give them even more. To many of us in the masses, the politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers who pander for the benefit of the plutocracy have understandable, though ignoble, motives. By pleasing the rich, they might get rich too. And many of them do. There are many, however, who are not rich, yet still insist that the rich are entitled to all their money. In the interest of fairness, which the rich demand whether or not they grant it, we must ask some questions. Are there valid moral justifications for greed? Should greed be removed from the deadly sins list and added to the virtues? Where does reality fit in?
All human beings justify their actions, at least while they do them. Captains of industry and finance, and their defenders, insist that getting and keeping more is a righteous goal. Huntington stopped short of admitting he stole by claiming it was all his in the first place. Pirates from Alexander the Great to Jesse James have surely felt the same. From the onset of the Industrial Revolution, capitalist plutocrats have always believed their actions were the guiding lights of human progress, that mankind could not have advanced from the caves were it not for high minded men such as themselves. They may have done some awful deeds, but it's all been worth it.
Yes, railroad builder Huntington helped make our country great. How that fact justifies his right to everything he could grab, how his justification differs from open theft, may be hard to explain, but greed is a powerful addiction. Carnegie, who made steel readily available worldwide, claimed that humanity's lot was better as a direct result of capitalist conflict and disruption. He made that claim sixteen years before Ayn Rand, the modern guru of greed, was even born. Over the last century, history has witnessed many wars, depressions, and environmental disasters. Stacked up, these calamities evoke serious doubts whether on balance, the human race is better off since capitalism has held sway over human events. Still, there are many influential voices that continue to preach the wonders of unmitigated greed.
The main reason Carnegie is ignored today by modern apologists for wealth is that Carnegie states flatly that wealthy people should give away most of their money, to pay for the damages they caused in the acquisition process. As one who had been there, he could say with assurance that competition demands that businessmen have a lot of money to do what they need to do. But once the industrial or financial empires are built and in place, the winners no longer need those huge fortunes, and they are obliged to give the money back. He also says that if the rich insist on keeping their wealth, the public has the right to tax them to get what normal people need. Some modern billionaires, led by Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet, are practicing what Carnegie preached. They are voices in the wilderness, given the powerful narcotic of greed. Most rich people, and those who strive to imitate them, cling to the belief that selfishness alone is the root of all human progress. So the debate goes on.
The fall back position for the disciples of greed (should Carnegie and his modern counterparts prove convincing to the masses) is the moral argument: that wealth belongs to those who have it, and nobody has any right to take it away, for any reason. The wealth the rich possess is proof enough of their entitlement. The argument is persuasive. If we were rich, would we want to be punished for it? Then Huntington's famous quote reminds us that the plutocrat's concept of ownership is a little different from most peoples.'
Whether or not we have a moral right to free rich people from their greed, the world is in serious economic trouble. Getting more money into circulation has been proven to relieve hard times. Money nowadays is concentrated in the hands of an extremely small group of people, who refuse to circulate it. Since America is still structurally a democracy, do the people have the right to use democratic measures to use this money to improve the general welfare? We need the money. Have we the right to "pry it loose?"
Friday, December 10, 2010
THE INSANITY OF DENIAL
"Ignorance is strength"--Orwell, 1984
"Knowledge itself if power."--Francis Bacon, Religious Meditations-Of Heresies
New polls tell us more Americans disbelieve in global warming than did a short while ago. Climate scientists are banding together to reinforce their findings that not only is the world getting hotter, but human activity, mostly burning coal and oil, is its main cause. Whether the truth will out or the Big Lie will prevail is beyond our ability to accurately predict. We do know there are powerful corporate interests among us who are dead set on promoting the Lie, against all prevailing scientific evidence and even their own enlightened self-interest. And many among the average folks are eager to believe the Big Lie.
Society appears to be trending toward the Orwellian situation whereby science is routinely ignored, even suppressed, excepting warfare and police surveillance. Climate science definitely does not fit into these categories, and so must be sacrificed for the perpetuation of corporate power. This is understandable. History is full of big names who waste underlings in a constant effort to preserve and expand their power and privilege. The question is why so many average, workaday Americans are eager to be wasted so that the upper classes might retain their position a little while longer.
It is one thing to refuse to act on available information, quite another to plug the senses in steadfast denial. Most of us have at least some unhealthy habits that we know to be harmful, but we're frankly having too much fun to give them up. We Americans like our way of life: our cars, our air conditioners, our plentiful, varied foods, and other niceties. We feel we have earned them, and hate to lose them. But common sense tells us we stand to lost most or all of our bountiful lifestyle if global warming continues unabated, and that if mankind is causing the problem, mankind is in a good position to stop or reverse it, and the quicker we act, the less harsh will be the readjustments we must make. Yet we disdain both knowledge and common sense. Why?
Most of the climate change deniers in America are comfortable, suburban or rural, middle-aged or older, English-speaking, of European descent. Ethnically they are similar to most of the people who control the country. Despite the similarities, the ruling elites seem to be unaware of the existence of these people, except around election time when they send their minions and lackeys out to garner votes. Probably most members of this loyal demographic know full well that their needs are of no concern to the upper class. But the American myth is that anybody can get rich here, with the right combination of good ideas, hard work, and luck, and these middle-Americans feel close enough to maybe hit it big under the right circumstances. These are the "true" Americans, as they like to see themselves, and their status so close to the upper crust is threatened by the concept of climate change. To act on scientific information regarding climate change will require a unified and determined effort on behalf of the whole human race. The "true" Americans' concept of their country's exceptional standing in the world, along with their semi-privileged standard of living, might be sacrificed for the greater good of mankind. And what if all our efforts to curtail global warming don't work? Denial is tempting.
Of course there are other scenarios, much more optimistic, based on the idea that humanity has caused this problem, and humanity can work its way out. But since no one can truly predict the future, we are faced with either ignoring science, or acting on it. Even if global warming turns out to be a false fear, we still have immense, horrible problems with our polluted environment. No one can deny this reality. The ecological and climate solutions are the same. Must we oppose cleaning up the air, water, and soil, simply because some of us refuse to believe the weather is getting hotter? Surely we have advanced beyond the century-old notion that dingy skies and stinky streams are the signs of prosperity. If we clean up the environment, and never know whether the climate was changing, how will we be worse off? If we ignore science, and it turns out scientists are right, it will be too late to say "Oops!" Yes, there is strength in ignorance: the strength of a mob. There is power in knowledge as well, the power of people to improve their lot. In a worst-case scenario, America's wealthy elites would likely be the last to perish. Those of us in that comfortable middle would be next-to-last.
Not much consolation there.
"Knowledge itself if power."--Francis Bacon, Religious Meditations-Of Heresies
New polls tell us more Americans disbelieve in global warming than did a short while ago. Climate scientists are banding together to reinforce their findings that not only is the world getting hotter, but human activity, mostly burning coal and oil, is its main cause. Whether the truth will out or the Big Lie will prevail is beyond our ability to accurately predict. We do know there are powerful corporate interests among us who are dead set on promoting the Lie, against all prevailing scientific evidence and even their own enlightened self-interest. And many among the average folks are eager to believe the Big Lie.
Society appears to be trending toward the Orwellian situation whereby science is routinely ignored, even suppressed, excepting warfare and police surveillance. Climate science definitely does not fit into these categories, and so must be sacrificed for the perpetuation of corporate power. This is understandable. History is full of big names who waste underlings in a constant effort to preserve and expand their power and privilege. The question is why so many average, workaday Americans are eager to be wasted so that the upper classes might retain their position a little while longer.
It is one thing to refuse to act on available information, quite another to plug the senses in steadfast denial. Most of us have at least some unhealthy habits that we know to be harmful, but we're frankly having too much fun to give them up. We Americans like our way of life: our cars, our air conditioners, our plentiful, varied foods, and other niceties. We feel we have earned them, and hate to lose them. But common sense tells us we stand to lost most or all of our bountiful lifestyle if global warming continues unabated, and that if mankind is causing the problem, mankind is in a good position to stop or reverse it, and the quicker we act, the less harsh will be the readjustments we must make. Yet we disdain both knowledge and common sense. Why?
Most of the climate change deniers in America are comfortable, suburban or rural, middle-aged or older, English-speaking, of European descent. Ethnically they are similar to most of the people who control the country. Despite the similarities, the ruling elites seem to be unaware of the existence of these people, except around election time when they send their minions and lackeys out to garner votes. Probably most members of this loyal demographic know full well that their needs are of no concern to the upper class. But the American myth is that anybody can get rich here, with the right combination of good ideas, hard work, and luck, and these middle-Americans feel close enough to maybe hit it big under the right circumstances. These are the "true" Americans, as they like to see themselves, and their status so close to the upper crust is threatened by the concept of climate change. To act on scientific information regarding climate change will require a unified and determined effort on behalf of the whole human race. The "true" Americans' concept of their country's exceptional standing in the world, along with their semi-privileged standard of living, might be sacrificed for the greater good of mankind. And what if all our efforts to curtail global warming don't work? Denial is tempting.
Of course there are other scenarios, much more optimistic, based on the idea that humanity has caused this problem, and humanity can work its way out. But since no one can truly predict the future, we are faced with either ignoring science, or acting on it. Even if global warming turns out to be a false fear, we still have immense, horrible problems with our polluted environment. No one can deny this reality. The ecological and climate solutions are the same. Must we oppose cleaning up the air, water, and soil, simply because some of us refuse to believe the weather is getting hotter? Surely we have advanced beyond the century-old notion that dingy skies and stinky streams are the signs of prosperity. If we clean up the environment, and never know whether the climate was changing, how will we be worse off? If we ignore science, and it turns out scientists are right, it will be too late to say "Oops!" Yes, there is strength in ignorance: the strength of a mob. There is power in knowledge as well, the power of people to improve their lot. In a worst-case scenario, America's wealthy elites would likely be the last to perish. Those of us in that comfortable middle would be next-to-last.
Not much consolation there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)